Lahood v Ralph [2005] NSWSC 1366

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Lahood v Ralph [2005] NSWSC 1366

HEARING DATE(S) : 3 March 2005

JUDGMENT DATE : 3 March 2005

JURISDICTION : Equity Division

JUDGMENT OF : Windeyer J at 1

DECISION : Declaration that binding agreement made

CATCHWORDS : CONVEYANCING - vendor and purchaser - agreement to enter into contract for sale ofland - whether document binding - intention of the parties to be bound

Conveyancing Act 1919 s52A LEGISLATION CITED : Evidence Act 1995 s67

CASES CITED : Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353

Raymond Lahood (Plaintiff) PARTIES : Philip John Walker Ralph and Gregory Charles Ralph as executors of the will of Ian Ronald Ralph (Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 2682/04

Mr G M Colman (Plaintiff) COUNSEL : Mr V R Gray (Defendant)

Warren F Ball (Plaintiff) SOLICITORS : Gye and Associates (Defendant)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION :

- 8 - IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION

WINDEYER J

THURSDAY 3 MARCH 2005

2682/04 RAYMOND LAHOOD v PHILIP JOHN WALTER RALPH AND GREGORY CHARLES AS EXECUTORS OF THE WILL OF IAN RONALD RALPH

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: I consider that the plaintiff's claim succeeds for reasons which I will now give. 2 The claim of the plaintiff in this case is for a declaration that there was a binding contract between himself and Mr Ian Ralph, now deceased, for the purchase by him from Mr Ralph of property at 27 Cowper Street, Granville. The defendants are now joined by amended summons as a result of an order made by the court at an earlier time and are the executors of the will of Mr Ralph. Mr Lahood and Mr Ralph were known to each other, Mr Lahood having conducted a business on the premises close by the subject property. They had on an earlier occasion entered into negotiations for the sale and purchase of the property, which had not come to fruition. Negotiations recommenced in March or April 2003. The negotiations were about the purchase price. 3 There is no doubt that the parties agreed on a price of $480,000 plus GST, if there were any goods and services tax payable by the vendor on the sale. Mr Lahood and Mr Ralph met together on 4 April when they discussed the proposals for the sale and purchase. The evidence of the plaintiff is clear enough as to what happened. The evidence of Mr Ralph is in the form of an affidavit, which he had apparently prepared for the purpose of these proceedings prior to his death, most of which was admitted into evidence pursuant to s67 of the Evidence Act 1995. There is no dispute about the price of $480,000 plus GST, if applicable. 4 There were other discussions as to an amount to be payable either by way of deposit or up front, which was to be non-refundable. There were discussions about the completion date, partly because Mr Ralph needed to have sufficient time to remove his stock from the premises. 5 Mr Ralph said to Mr Lahood that he would make up a document to explain the basis upon which the sale might take place, setting out the terms, which according to Mr Lahood were agreed on 4 April, namely, $480,000 plus GST if applicable; $5000 non-refundable deposit; settlement to take place after 1 July 2003. 6 Mr Ralph subsequently contacted Mr Lahood and said that he had prepared the document. This document is in evidence, and is dated 7 April 2002. It is accepted that is a mistake and it should be 2003. That document commences with the words: "Dear Ray,